TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 821
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Standing Counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent. This revision has been preferred by the Revenue challenging the order dated 08.10.2012, passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, whereby the second appeal preferred by the respondent has been allowed. The revision relates to the assessment year 2008-09. The undisputed facts of the present case a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....II) - Appeal, Allahabad, who rejected the appeal of the respondent by means of order dated 7th December, 2010. Aggrieved by the order passed by the first appellate authority, the respondent preferred second appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, which has been allowed by means of impugned order dated 08.10.2012. Against which the Department has preferred the instant revision. This revision ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the same. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Tribunal has considered the entire facts of the case in their right perspective and has recorded a finding of fact that despite the fact that all the columns of Form-38 remained unfilled, the onus was on the Assessing Authority to show that there was intention on the part of the dealer to evade tax and penalty under Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esent case the only question of law pressed by learned counsel for the revisionist is as to Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act. The aforesaid question of law is infact a question of fact and the Tribunal being last forum for recording the fin....